international trademark protection william fisher june 25, 2004 many of the slides in this...

International Trademark Protection

William Fisher

June 25, 2004

Many of the slides in this presentation were prepared by the Technical Cooperation Division of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal

Market, Alicante, Spain, October 29, 1998

Internationalization of Trademark Protection: Four Axes

(1) Harmonization of the laws of separate jurisdictions

(2) Facilitation of Filings and Management in other countries

(3) Expanding coverage of regional trademarks

(4) Expansion of trademark entitlements

Terminus: single, uniform, world-wide, highly protective trademark system

Vehicles of International Trademark Protection

• Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967)• Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967)• Madrid Protocol (1989)• Trademark Law Treaty (1996)• TRIPS• Regional Trademark Systems

– Community Trademarks (European Union)– MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay)– Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela)– APEC (Asia-Pacific)– ARPIO & OAPI (Africa)


• Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967)

• Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967)

• Madrid Protocol (1989)

• Trademark Law Treaty (1996)

• TRIPS

• Regional Trademark Systems– Community Trademarks (European Union)– MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay)– Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela)– APEC (Asia-Pacific)– ARPIO & OAPI (Africa)

Paris Convention• No discrimination against nationals of other

countries -- 2

• First filing date in a member country gives applicant priority in all other countries, provided filings are made within 6 months -- 4

• Marks considered “well-known” in any member country protected against use on similar goods in that country -- 6bis

• Protection of foreign nationals against “unfair competition” -- 10bis



– Community Trademarks (European Union)– MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay)– Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela)– APEC (Asia-Pacific)– ARPIO & OAPI (Africa)



– Community Trademarks (European Union)

– MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay)

– Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela)

– APEC (Asia-Pacific)

– ARPIO & OAPI (Africa)

Madrid Agreement• 30 Countries (not USA)• Owner of a “basic registration” may file

international TM application in home office– if int’l application is filed within 6 months of

basic registration, get date of priority• Application forwarded to WIPO, which:

– issues international registration– publishes in Les Marques Internationales– forwards application to designated member

countries• National offices examine application for

conformity with national laws– if no action within 1 year, deemed registered

• “Central Attack”• French

Madrid Protocol• 70 countries (USA joined on 11/2/2003)• After filing domestic application, applicant may

file international TM application in home office– if int’l application is filed within 6 months of

basic application, get date of priority• Application forwarded to WIPO, which:

– issues international registration– publishes in Les Marques Internationales– forwards application to designated member

countries• National offices examine application for

conformity with national laws– if no action within 1 year, deemed registered

• No “Central Attack”• French or English

http://www.wipo.org/madrid/en/legal_texts/madrid_protocol.htm

Trademark Law Treaty• Procedural simplification and harmonization• 27 countries, including US (as of 2/26/2002)• Standard forms for applications, powers of

attorney, etc.• Countries may require only:

– name and address, – information concerning the mark– goods and services the mark pertains to, – the mark's classification, – declaration of the intention to use the mark.

• 10-year initial term and renewal terms

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/tlt/index.html


• Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967)• Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967)• Madrid Protocol (1989)• Trademark Law Treaty (1996)• TRIPS (1994)• Regional Trademark Systems






TRIPS Harmonization• National Treatment and MFN

• Service marks must be protected -- 15

• Geographical indications must be protected (especially for wine and spirits) -- 22 & 23

• Mandatory Procedures for Publication, Opposition, and Cancellation -- 15

• Expansive protection for well-known marks -- 16

• 7-year minimum term -- 18

• Cancellation for non-use only after 3 years; longer if owner has legitimate excuse -- 19.

• No compulsory licensing -- 21

• No “special requirements” encumbering use -- 21

• Preliminary relief must be available

Bacardi Case• Pre-1959: Arechabalas family owns Cuban TM in Havana Club• 1959: Cuban government confiscates assets of Arechabalas family• Arechabalas let Cuban TM registration lapse• Cuban company registers Havana Club, then enters into joint

venture with Pernod Ricard (French); HCH sells rum under that label in 80 countries

• 1997: Bacardi (Bermuda company) buys rights to “Havana Club” from Arechabalas family

• HCH seeks US registration for “Havana Club”• 1998, Congress adopts “Section 211,” forbidding U.S. courts to

recognize or enforce TM rights used in connection with a confiscated business, unless the confiscado consents; limited to Cuban confiscados;

• HCH unable to press its claims in U.S courts• Castro threatens to begin local, unauthorized production of Coca-

Cola• EU initiates WTO dispute settlement

Bacardi Case• Final Ruling of WTO appellate body

(January 2002):– Trade names are covered by TRIPS– Each country had substantial latitude

in regulating conditions for registration of marks• Thus US could refuse to register

confiscated marks

– But non-discrimination principles (National Treatment and MFN) forbid special treatment for nationals of a particular foreign country

Community Trademark• Coexists with national TM systems

• Substantive Harmonization

• Open System (contrast Madrid Protocol)

• Administrative hierarchy:

– OHIM

– OHIM Boards of Appeals

– European Court of Justice

• “Absolute” Grounds for Nonregistration

– indistinctive, descriptive, functional, deceptive, flags, etc.

• Designated “Community TM Courts” in each country

• Cancellation for nonuse in Europe for 5 years

Directive 89/104:Substantive Harmonization

1) definition of what can be registered as a trademark;

2) rights conferred by a trademark;

3) conditions on use of a trademark, especially, cancellation for lack of use;

4) exhaustion of the rights;

5) grounds for refusal, invalidation, or revocation of a trademark

ESPT

FR

IT

GR

AT

DE

GBIE

BX

SEFI

DK

National Trademark Systems

EM ®

TM

Three Alternative Routes

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICES: NATIONAL TRADE MARKS

national offices



national offices

WIPO: REGISTRATION OF A INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKS



national offices

WIPO: REGISTRATION OF A INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKS

OHIM: REGISTRATION OF A COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS

OHIM ALICANTE


SENIORITY ES:National trade mark as from 12.6.1980

IT:

National trade mark as from 15.11.1981

DE:


GR:


NATIONAL TRADE MARKS

SENIORITY ES:National trade mark as from 12.6.1980

IT:


DE:


GR:


COMMUNITY TRADE MARK

as from 10.7.1997

NATIONAL TRADE MARKS

COMMUNITY TRADE MARK

APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY

TRADE MARK ON PAPER

OHIM

NATIONAL OFFICES

ETMAF

FILING OF A COMMUNITY TRADE MARK

by mail or courier service

by fax personal delivery

LANGUAGES

• English

• French

• German

• Italian

• Spanish

the OHIM the European Union

• Danish

• Dutch

• English

• Finnish

• French

• German

• Greek

• Italian

• Portuguese

• Spanish

• Swedish

EXAMINATION

Conditions of filing

Conditions relating to the entitlement of the proprietor

Examination as to formalities

National OfficesES, AT, BX, DK, FI, GB,

GR, IE, PT, SE

Examination as to absolute grounds of refusal

APPLICATION

EUROMARC

FORMAL EXAMINATION

SEARCH REPORTS

ABSOLUTE GROUNDS

PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION

OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS

• Earlier TM applications or registrations in Member States

• Earlier international registrations with effect in at least one of the countries of the EU

• Or, earlier CTMs or CTMAs

PUBLICATION

NO OPPOSITION OPPOSITION

DECISION ON OPPOSITION

REFUSAL

in whole or in part

REGISTRATION

TYPES OF COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS

1 Trade marks for goods or services

2 Collective trade marks

RIGHTS CONFERRED BY A COMMUNITY TRADE MARK

• of exclusive use of the trade mark;

• to prevent the reproduction or imitation of a trade mark;

• to transfer a trade mark or to grant licenses for some or all of the goods or services to which the trade mark is registered, in part or the whole of the Community;

• to oppose the registration of similar Community or national trade marks which could cause confusion to the consumer.

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET

STATISTICS

Technical Cooperation Division

Tec

hn

ical

Coo

per

atio

n D

ivis

ion

COMMUNITY TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN – 1997

(MORE THAN 1,000 APPLICATIONS)

total number of applications: 93,036

US DE GB IT ES FR JP NL SE CH DK AT BE OTHER26.277 15.043 12.506 6.018 5.657 5.016 2.717 2.625 2.133 1.816 1.566 1.465 1.462 8.73528,24% 16,17% 13,44% 6,47% 6,08% 5,39% 2,92% 2,82% 2,29% 1,95% 1,68% 1,57% 1,57% 9,39%

28,24%

16,17%

13,44%

6,47%

6,08%

5,39%

2,92%

2,82%2,29%

1,95%1,68%

1,57%1,57%9,39%

Total Registrations, by Country, 1997-2001

BEDK

DE

GR

ESFR

IE

IT

LUNL

ATPTFISE

GB

JPCH

US

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

EU

Tec

hn

ical

Coo

per

atio

n D

ivis

ion

COMMUNITY TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS BREAKDOWN BY

FIRST LANGUAGE OF APPLICATION

English German Dutch French Spanish Italian Other39.998 18.151 10.072 6.347 6.582 5.996 5.89042,99% 19,51% 10,83% 6,82% 7,07% 6,44% 6,33%

19,51%

10,83%

6,82%

7,07%

6,44%6,33%

42,99%

Tec

hn

ical

Coo

per

atio

n D

ivis

ion

COMMUNITY TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS BREAKDOWN BY

SECOND LANGUAGE OF APPLICATION

English French Spanish German Italian not specified48.570 27.161 8.226 5.099 3.925 5552,21% 29,19% 8,84% 5,48% 4,22% 0,06%

29,19%

8,84%

5,48% 4,22% 0,06% 52,21%

APPLICATION BY NUMBER OF CLASSES

Tec

hn

ical

Coo

per

atio

n D

ivis

ion N° of classes N° of applications %

1 39.555 42,52%2 15.236 16,38%3 25.071 26,95%4 5.160 5,55%5 2.788 3,00%6 1.633 1,76%7 949 1,02%8 633 0,68%

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

APPLICATIONS BY NATURE

Tec

hn

ical

Coo

per

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Nature Number %Word Mark 59.625 64,09%Figurative 31.656 34,03%3D 879 0,94%Other 876 0,94%Total 93.036 100,00%

59.625

31.656

8768790

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

Word Mark Figurative 3D Other

APPLICATIONS BY DEPOSIT CLASSES

Tec

hn

ical

Coo

per

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Class number N° of applications %9 26.551 11,66%42 17.568 7,72%16 16.274 7,15%25 13.088 5,75%41 9.213 4,05%35 8.857 3,89%5 7.972 3,50%3 7.264 3,19%7 6.701 2,94%30 6.607 2,90%28 6.274 2,76%

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

9 42 16 25 41 35 5 3 7 30 28

Class 9 : Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking , life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; calculating machines; cash registers, data processing equipment and computers; ....

Class 42 : Providing of food and drink; temporary accommodation; medical, hygienic and beauty care; veterinary and agricultural services; ...

Class 16 : Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; artists materials; ...

INDIVIDUAL MARK

ECU US $

Basic fee for application(including 3 classes)

975 1,162

Fee for each class exceeding 3 200 238

Opposition fee 350 417

Fee for alteration 200 238

Basic fee for registration(including 3 classes)

1,100 1,311

Fee for each class exceeding 3 200 238

Renewal fee 2,500 2,980

Fee for renewal for each class ofg/s exceeding 3 classes

500 596

Fee for invalidity 700 834

Appeal fee 800 953

FEES (1998)

1 ECU=1.19192 US $ (26 October 1998)

g/s = goods and services

INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC

• Community Trade Mark Bulletin

- on paper

- on CD-ROM

• Official Journal of the Office

• Annual Activity Report• Internet: http://oami.eu.int



– Community Trademarks (European Union)– MERCOSURMERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay)– Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela)– APEC (Asia-Pacific)– ARPIO & OAPI (Africa)

MERCOSUR• Mercado Comun del Sur

• Goals:

– Free movement within the common market of goods, services, capital, and labor

– common trade policy vis-à-vis other countries

– coordination of macroeconomic policies

– harmonization of domestic legislation to increase regional integration

• Currently substantial variations among trademark protection provided by the four member countries

MERCOSUR• Protocol for the Harmonization of Regulation

of Intellectual Property

– adopted 1995

• Member states will abide by TRIPS

• National Treatment

• Expansive Definition of trademarks, service marks, collective marks

• Uniform list of unprotectable marks

• Limited prior user rights

• Uniform Protection of “Well-known” marks

• 10-year term, renewable

• Parallel Imports permitted



– Community Trademarks (European Union)– MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay)– Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela)Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela)– APEC (Asia-Pacific)– ARPIO & OAPI (Africa)

Andean Pact• Decision 486 (2000): Common Intellectual Property

Regime (in compliance with TRIPS)• National Treatment and MFN Principles• Separate National Trademark Registries• 6-month priority window for registration in other

countries • Andean Opposition• Coexistence of identical or similar marks for

competitive goods permitted, provided– the owners reach a “coexistence agreement”– that avoids consumer confusion– registered with national office




Central American Trademark?

Current Situation in Central America

Separate applications; local counsel;renewals; potential litigation; etc.

Proposal: Regional Trademark System

single application;single local counsel;single renewal system;infringement judgment binding throughout the region

Central-American Trademark would be easier to establish

than the European Community Mark

• No language barriers

• We could build upon (and improve upon) the European experience

• The managers of the OHIM have offered to help design and implement a Central-American system

Advantages of the Regional System

• From the standpoint of firms:

– much simpler and less expensive

– easier to police TM violations





• From the standpoint of the region






– help attract multinational firms







– total costs of the registries would diminish sharply







– total costs of the registries would diminish sharply

– the regional registry would be a profit center


• From the standpoint of firms:– much simpler and less expensive– easier to police TM violations

• From the standpoint of the region– help attract multinational firms– total costs of the registries would diminish

sharply– the regional registry would be a profit center– provide a pilot project to test the prospects for

general economic integration of Central America

international trademark protection william fisher june 25, 2004 many of the slides in this...

Documents

trademark law treaty

madrid protocol

madrid agreement

bis slide

international tm application

uruguay andean pact

countries usa

intl application